1.       EXCHANGE OF OPERATIONAL STATE PROFILE – there should be discussion on what should be fixed for the IOP. If there is a need to extend the operational hypothesis profile this should not have impact on what we are putting for the IOP.

Further discussion is expected on Wed. We need an agreement with target to implement end of Feb or Beginning of March

2.       SEPARATION OF THE EQ PROFILE – WG13 to recommend what ENTSO-E should do and agree on how 452 will be changed. There are 2 directions suggested in the attached document. We need flexible enough solution that does not impact current implementations significantly.

Some discussion expected in WG13
3.       HVDC – We expect that WG13 will finalize CSC model by end of Feb. We prefer to have part of the model for VSC so that missing information could be extended without changing the structure. The “simplified” VSC part could ready by April.

Testing data structure vs testing of load flow implementation. The IOP may go in the direction to test data structures. Vendors should verify if they can map to this structure. This is important in case the IOP confirm data structures and ENTSO-E freezes the profile. 

4.       Initial discussions on the issue “EXCHANGE OF PROJECT INFORMATION TOGETHER WITH THE MODELS.” Should start and see if we could have a simplified way by April so that we could potentially test in the IOP.

Other issues

1.       ISSUE IEC 8: TRANSFORMER MODEL - Already discussed: You need to provide WG13 resolution harmonized with WG14 – resolved: no change will be applied

2.       ISSUE IEC 9: NAME, NAMETYPE ISSUE - Already discussed: You need to provide WG13 resolution harmonized with WG14 –name, nametype will be removed from 452; It will be removed from ENTSO-E profile as well

3.       ISSUE IEC 10: CLARIFICATION REGARDING RDF:ID AND MRID - - Already discussed: You need to provide WG13 resolution harmonized with WG14

4.       ISSUE IEC 12: ROUNDING ISSUE - DIFFERENCE FILES – perhaps the necessary changes are already reflected in 552 – WG13 should confirm

5.       ISSUE IEC 14: CONNECTIVITYNODE IN LINE – WG13 should agree on what exactly will be the change in 452 (text proposal/example)

6.       ISSUE IEC 15: DIFFERENT DEVICES ON THE SAME REGULATING CONTROL – information on status is needed. How it will be described in 301 and who should take action and by when.

7.       ISSUE IEC 16: GENERATINGUNIT, FUEL TYPES ISSUE – temporally solution has been found. WG13 should come up with a kind of planning when the work of this could be restarted and what the goal would be. – postponned for CIM17

8.       ISSUE IEC 19: POTENTIAL CHANGES ON ROTATINGMACHINE – already agreed. It should be implemented in the next UML - done in CIM16v18

9.       C-066 (SVINJECTION CLASS USES GENERATION SIGN CONVENTION)  – 13, 14, 16 – WG13 ISSUE CALL 17 OCT 2012 – exact wording should be agreed and implemented in UML - done in CIM16v18

10.   ENTSO-E BOUNDARY AND BASEVOLTAGE – WG13 ISSUES CALL 7 NOV 2012 – exact wording should be agreed put in the list of pending changes for 452 and 301. ENTSO-E would like to already include this statement on the profile

11.   13_63 – RELAX MULTILPLICITY OF TOPOLOGICALNODE-TOPOLOGICALISLAND ASSOCIATION – need to discuss is there an impact on the 456 and ENTSO-E profile. If yes it should be stated.

12.   In Interlaken WG13 agreed to add the grounding classes (PetersenCoil, GroundImpedance, GroundDisconnector and Ground) to 452. What about EarthFaultCompensator? It is already in the ENTSO-E profile.

13.   In Interlaken WG13 decided that “Text will be added 552 to explain that underscore is required for exchange of UUID in RDF, but it is not part of the UUID.  Also specify use of lower case and dashes in 552.  A statement will also be added that mRID will be added to 61970-452 and all 45x profiles, but it will continue to be exchanged as rdf:ID.” - Do we need to add mRID to all ENTSO-E profiles?

14.   Issue Load response characteristic – descriptions of attributes should be revised – see below done in CIM16v18:

a.       exponentModel – typo in the description “coeficient”

b.      pConstantCurrent – in the description we have reference to “useExponentModel”. It should be “exponentModel”. In addition the sentence “This value is noralized against the sum of pZ, pI, and pP.” should be corrected to refer to the right attributes and not to pZ, pI and pP. Please also agree if normalized (by the way also typo there) is the right expression. Maybe we should also state that the sum of the 3 attributes should equal 1.

c.       pConstantImpedance – the same remarks as for pConstantCurrent

d.      pConstantPower – the same remarks as for pConstantCurrent

e.      pVoltageExponent – in the description we have reference to “useExponentModel”. It should be “exponentModel”.

f.        qConstantCurrent– the same remarks as for pConstantCurrent

g.       qConstantImpedance– the same remarks as for pConstantCurrent

h.      qConstantPower– the same remarks as for pConstantCurrent

i.         qVoltageExponent– in the description we have reference to “useExponentModel”. It should be “exponentModel”.